I doubt that the NHL, or the CBC, really care why there are fewer people watching NHL hockey, but unless they missed it, here's a BIG reason: the chatters, the "analysts," the talking heads.
Don Cherry is one person that television can do without, but commentators like MIKE MILBURY are another. In the context of less violence in hockey, he referred to the "pansification" of the game.
This sort of macho drivel is not acceptable today, and never will be. Even when this word was more commonly used, anyone with a sense of respect for others, didn't use it. In fact, they shunned it.
Language definitely evolves; we agree to that. So, if the word has evolved, just what does he think it meant before, and what does it mean NOW?
Come on, Milbury, let's hear your explanation.
This macho, "it's-just-the-boys"-being-themselves stuff must stop. That is just an excuse for poor, disrespectful, thoughtless, self-serving bad behaviour.
My letter to the CBC is on its way. Send yours. Today.
----------------------
Gay rights group outraged by CBC's use of 'pansification'
WILLIAM HOUSTON
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
January 28, 2009 at 8:34 PM EST
A gay rights group has complained to the CBC about the use of the term "pansification" by Hockey Night in Canada commentators.
Hockey Night commentator Mike Milbury coined the expression to describe how the NHL would be softened should the league heed calls to ban fighting. He has used "pansification" at least twice on Hockey Night this season, in November and again on Jan. 17. His colleague, Don Cherry, has also made reference to it.
Egale Canada, a gay advocacy organization, protested last week. But Scott Moore, the head of CBC Sports, said through a network spokesman yesterday that commentators are free to make their own decisions whether to use the expression.
"That's ridiculous," said Helen Kennedy, the executive director of Egale Canada. "So it's okay for people to go around using these slurs — derogatory, stereotypical terms against a group in society? That's outrageous."
Network spokesman Jeff Keay said neither Milbury nor Cherry intended to offend homosexuals by using "pansification," a derivative of the word pansy.
"The point is, it was no way intended to be a reflection on or offensive to gay people," Keay said. "I think the colloquial use of the term was something they didn't associate with gay people. The way the language evolves over time, 20 or 30 years ago it would have been seen, reasonably enough, as a direct slur against gay people.
"But I think with usage now, I'm not sure the association is so immediate."
Kennedy wasn't buying the explanation.
"Words like pansification just further the stereotype and perpetuate the homophobic stereotype in our society," she said yesterday.
Milbury joined the CBC last summer after working as a hockey commentator for TSN. A former NHL player, coach and general manager, he is also a commentator for NBC, where he talked about the "pansification" of hockey on the Jan. 18 NHL telecast.
A Harris-Decima poll found that 54 per cent of Canadians believe the NHL should ban fighting, while 40 per cent favoured continuing to penalize it with five-minute major penalties.
Egale Canada does not have a position on fighting in the NHL. Egale is an acronym for Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere. The Ottawa-based organization was founded in 1986 and reports a membership of more than 4,000.
Kennedy complained by telephone to network ombudsman Vince Carlin last week and said she followed up in writing. However, the ombudsman's office referred her to Moore's office.
"Programs always have the right to respond first," Carlin said. "And if the person is not happy with it, then they can ask for me to make an independent review."
Carlin said he isn't sure that he will address the issue. "To tell you the truth, it's on the margin," he said. "I generally handle journalism and tend not to handle sports. But there have been occasions where it is indeed journalism or something's been done. … To be honest, I haven't decided whether this is in my wheelhouse or not."
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Nearly Right......
Here's how Obama can raise Harper's game
by Lawrence Martin, the Globe and Mail, January 15, 2008.
Stephen Harper has about as little in common with Barack Obama as John Diefenbaker had with John Kennedy.
It's not just that one is liberal and the other conservative. They clash on myriad levels. One's a visionary, the other more of a plodder. One's a renowned communicator, the other spent almost his first term trying not to communicate.
The Obama approach is that of a consensus builder. The Harper approach is divide and conquer. The Obama world view is of one family. Mr. Harper inclines more toward the "clash of civilizations" template. The new president is about to shut down Guantanamo; the Prime Minister didn't have much of a problem with it. The new president is soon to shut down the Iraq war; Mr. Harper didn't have much of a problem with it.
In style, Mr. Obama is GQ, Mr. Harper Rotary Club. Mr. Obama is a fine wine, Mr. Harper lime juice. Mr. Obama is relaxed, Mr. Harper suspicious. One is inspirational, the other isn't. One makes Americans feel proud. The other makes Canadians - except when he's almost overthrowing his own government - feel indifferent.
Related Articles
Mr. Harper and other leaders suffer unfairly in comparison to Mr. Obama. The new president's gaining all these glorious notices without even having served a day on the job.
But what's striking about the incoming American leader is that he's probably closer to the Canadian mainstream than the Canadian leader, who's closer to the Calgary or Texas mainstream.
As might be expected, Mr. Obama has more similarities to Michael Ignatieff. From his years at Harvard and elsewhere, the Liberal Leader has several close contacts in the Obama camp and will no doubt, with time, be cultivating them.
Put it all together and you might get the impression that Mr. Harper is dreading the advent of Mr. Obama. But you could be wrong. Mr. Obama's arrival has Canadian Conservatives optimistic. In contrast to George W. Bush, who was a barnacle, the Democrat presents Mr. Harper with a big opportunity.
If the PM plays it properly, he can share in Mr. Obama's winds of change. By building rapport with the new president, he can establish for himself a more moderate, modern and attractive leadership personality.
Economic conditions are already forcing a commonality of approach from the two leaders. Deficit spending, stimulus spending and tax cuts are the way each is going. Mr. Harper's outlays will be more along the lines of a dime-store New Deal than Mr. Obama's, but that's because we don't need as much of an overhaul.
On the environment, each favours a cap-and-trade system to combat global warming. The PM has moved slowly on this issue, but Mr. Obama's arrival prompted him to quickly propose a mutual accord on the environment. If he can be seen to be at one with Mr. Obama on this issue, it will help Canadians forget his three years of foot-dragging.
On border barriers, a problem Mr. Harper unsuccessfully raised with Mr. Bush, he should be able to make more headway with the new president. Mr. Obama campaigned against Republican politics of fear, which has led to America's putting up walls around the wall, including along the Canadian border.
Mr. Obama has a vested interest in quickly building rapport with the Harper government. One of his priorities is getting Americans off their dependence on foreign oil from unstable states. For that, he needs Canada. His style is bipartisan, so he won't come at Mr. Harper with a closed mind.
The potential is there for Mr. Harper to bask in some of the Obama limelight for as long as it lasts. The two leaders will never be buddies. At root, Mr. Harper is too different for that to happen.
But if he can be seen as working shoulder to shoulder with the new president in fighting the great recession, he will succeed in doing what he cares about most -- scoring political points. His finding common cause with the exalted American liberal would be too much for Canadian Liberals to bear.
-30-
Harper won't be able to find a common thread.
Obama doesn't need to find a common thread.
Obama won't like Harper.
We'll see Harper's smarmy smile throughout. If he thinks that Obama won't see through him, his eyesight is impaired.
by Lawrence Martin, the Globe and Mail, January 15, 2008.
Stephen Harper has about as little in common with Barack Obama as John Diefenbaker had with John Kennedy.
It's not just that one is liberal and the other conservative. They clash on myriad levels. One's a visionary, the other more of a plodder. One's a renowned communicator, the other spent almost his first term trying not to communicate.
The Obama approach is that of a consensus builder. The Harper approach is divide and conquer. The Obama world view is of one family. Mr. Harper inclines more toward the "clash of civilizations" template. The new president is about to shut down Guantanamo; the Prime Minister didn't have much of a problem with it. The new president is soon to shut down the Iraq war; Mr. Harper didn't have much of a problem with it.
In style, Mr. Obama is GQ, Mr. Harper Rotary Club. Mr. Obama is a fine wine, Mr. Harper lime juice. Mr. Obama is relaxed, Mr. Harper suspicious. One is inspirational, the other isn't. One makes Americans feel proud. The other makes Canadians - except when he's almost overthrowing his own government - feel indifferent.
Related Articles
Mr. Harper and other leaders suffer unfairly in comparison to Mr. Obama. The new president's gaining all these glorious notices without even having served a day on the job.
But what's striking about the incoming American leader is that he's probably closer to the Canadian mainstream than the Canadian leader, who's closer to the Calgary or Texas mainstream.
As might be expected, Mr. Obama has more similarities to Michael Ignatieff. From his years at Harvard and elsewhere, the Liberal Leader has several close contacts in the Obama camp and will no doubt, with time, be cultivating them.
Put it all together and you might get the impression that Mr. Harper is dreading the advent of Mr. Obama. But you could be wrong. Mr. Obama's arrival has Canadian Conservatives optimistic. In contrast to George W. Bush, who was a barnacle, the Democrat presents Mr. Harper with a big opportunity.
If the PM plays it properly, he can share in Mr. Obama's winds of change. By building rapport with the new president, he can establish for himself a more moderate, modern and attractive leadership personality.
Economic conditions are already forcing a commonality of approach from the two leaders. Deficit spending, stimulus spending and tax cuts are the way each is going. Mr. Harper's outlays will be more along the lines of a dime-store New Deal than Mr. Obama's, but that's because we don't need as much of an overhaul.
On the environment, each favours a cap-and-trade system to combat global warming. The PM has moved slowly on this issue, but Mr. Obama's arrival prompted him to quickly propose a mutual accord on the environment. If he can be seen to be at one with Mr. Obama on this issue, it will help Canadians forget his three years of foot-dragging.
On border barriers, a problem Mr. Harper unsuccessfully raised with Mr. Bush, he should be able to make more headway with the new president. Mr. Obama campaigned against Republican politics of fear, which has led to America's putting up walls around the wall, including along the Canadian border.
Mr. Obama has a vested interest in quickly building rapport with the Harper government. One of his priorities is getting Americans off their dependence on foreign oil from unstable states. For that, he needs Canada. His style is bipartisan, so he won't come at Mr. Harper with a closed mind.
The potential is there for Mr. Harper to bask in some of the Obama limelight for as long as it lasts. The two leaders will never be buddies. At root, Mr. Harper is too different for that to happen.
But if he can be seen as working shoulder to shoulder with the new president in fighting the great recession, he will succeed in doing what he cares about most -- scoring political points. His finding common cause with the exalted American liberal would be too much for Canadian Liberals to bear.
-30-
Harper won't be able to find a common thread.
Obama doesn't need to find a common thread.
Obama won't like Harper.
We'll see Harper's smarmy smile throughout. If he thinks that Obama won't see through him, his eyesight is impaired.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Mr Harper, Meet Mr Obama
Time for Mr Harper to be on his best behaviour and to put on a genuine and warm smile.
Everyone seems to be offering Mr Harper a few tippers, so here goes:
1. Be genuine.
2. Be warm and friendly.
3. Don't fake a smile; when you do that, it comes across as patronizing
4. Invite Mr Obama back with his family, for a few days in Ottawa or at the lake....that's Harrington Lake.
5. Don't press any issues with him. This is a "getting to know my neighbour" visit, not a visit to lay down the law or press ANY point except that we are neighbours.
6. Relax!!!! Lighten up!
Further to to this...please don't wear that suit and tie that you recently wore in Vancouver. It is too formal, looks like your top-of-the-line power suit, and doesn't convey the right image for this occasion (did it in Vancouver?). And for heaven's sake don't wear BROWN!!!
Everyone seems to be offering Mr Harper a few tippers, so here goes:
1. Be genuine.
2. Be warm and friendly.
3. Don't fake a smile; when you do that, it comes across as patronizing
4. Invite Mr Obama back with his family, for a few days in Ottawa or at the lake....that's Harrington Lake.
5. Don't press any issues with him. This is a "getting to know my neighbour" visit, not a visit to lay down the law or press ANY point except that we are neighbours.
6. Relax!!!! Lighten up!
Further to to this...please don't wear that suit and tie that you recently wore in Vancouver. It is too formal, looks like your top-of-the-line power suit, and doesn't convey the right image for this occasion (did it in Vancouver?). And for heaven's sake don't wear BROWN!!!
Monday, January 12, 2009
Canadia Core Values
In a letter to the editor in The Globe and Mail this morning, a fellow named Owen Leitch writes from Toronto that "innocent people {are} dying by the hundreds {in Gaza}."
"We in Canada should stick to our core values of peace, tolerance and respect for human rights...."
How seldom we read in the newspapers about Canada's "core values." The word 'values' is bandied about, without the speaker/writer really knowing what he/she is talking about. It sounds nice, it seems to get attention, it apparently makes the speaker appear knowledgeable.
One definition of "values" is our "deeply held beliefs." And 'core values' are those few that are at the heart of a person or country (in this case). There aren't lot of core values; there are few. But Leitch hits it correctly when he says that there are three core values which are at the heart of this country: peace, tolerance and respect for human rights. Without these, we would not be what we have become.
And that is why some Canadians are so opposed to the change in our armed forces, from a group who act to maintain peace, to a group that far too often is the aggressor.
"We in Canada should stick to our core values of peace, tolerance and respect for human rights...."
How seldom we read in the newspapers about Canada's "core values." The word 'values' is bandied about, without the speaker/writer really knowing what he/she is talking about. It sounds nice, it seems to get attention, it apparently makes the speaker appear knowledgeable.
One definition of "values" is our "deeply held beliefs." And 'core values' are those few that are at the heart of a person or country (in this case). There aren't lot of core values; there are few. But Leitch hits it correctly when he says that there are three core values which are at the heart of this country: peace, tolerance and respect for human rights. Without these, we would not be what we have become.
And that is why some Canadians are so opposed to the change in our armed forces, from a group who act to maintain peace, to a group that far too often is the aggressor.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
A Wonderful Respite
It was a blessing that Canadian politicians took a break over Christmas and the New Year holidays. It was refreshing not to hear complaints, criticism, political spin, and verbal beating on others.
And, last night, the victory of the Canadian men's under 20 hockey team at the World Junior Championships gave everyone a chance to be positive. The game was well-played, the enthusiasm of the young men almost contagious, and the patriotism palpable. What a great way to start 2009! Thanks to the athletes and all the support staff that assisted them through a long try-out period and training camp and training.
Let's hope that the litany of doom and gloom will be less, and politicians will realize how much we enjoyed their hiatus!
And, last night, the victory of the Canadian men's under 20 hockey team at the World Junior Championships gave everyone a chance to be positive. The game was well-played, the enthusiasm of the young men almost contagious, and the patriotism palpable. What a great way to start 2009! Thanks to the athletes and all the support staff that assisted them through a long try-out period and training camp and training.
Let's hope that the litany of doom and gloom will be less, and politicians will realize how much we enjoyed their hiatus!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)